What happened
The student joined a school sport ride of more than 16 kilometres without meaningful assessment of participants’ road-riding experience or adequate instruction about formation, speed and road rules. After the teachers dismissed the group on the return journey, he fell behind his friends, rode beside stationary traffic and entered a give-way intersection, where he was struck by a vehicle approaching from his right.
The issues
The appeal asked whether contributory negligence was available when the standard was that of a reasonable 14-year-old, and whether a 40% reduction was justified despite the school’s duty being directed to preventing this kind of road risk. It also challenged the adequacy of the trial judge’s reasons for the factual findings and apportionment.
The court's decision
The Court upheld the factual finding, based on an independent witness, that the student rode through the give-way sign without slowing or stopping. The school’s negligence did not exclude the student’s own duty of care, and the 40% apportionment remained within the permissible evaluative range after considering his age, fatigue and position behind the group; the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Understanding the figures
The parties agreed historical gross damages of AUD 600,000. The trial judgment was AUD 360,000 after a 40% contributory-negligence reduction, and dismissal of the appeal left that reduced outcome undisturbed; the appellant was ordered to pay the appeal costs.
What this case shows
The case illustrates that contributory negligence is not legally excluded merely because the defendant’s duty was intended to protect the plaintiff from the very risk that occurred. A child is not judged by an adult standard, but the court may still assess what reasonable care a child of the same age should have taken in response to a give-way sign and stationary traffic.
Why another case may differ
This was a fact-specific apportionment for a 1996 accident involving both deficient school supervision and the student’s conduct; it does not set a standard 40% reduction for child cyclists. The AUD 600,000 figure was agreed gross damages, while the AUD 360,000 judgment represented the amount after the 40% contributory-negligence reduction and remained undisturbed on appeal.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →